Deputationist Can Be Repatriated Anytime For Unsatisfactory Conduct; No Vested Right To Continue On Deputation: Calcutta HC

Background Facts

The employee was a Senior Private Secretary in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Visakhapatnam. He was selected for the post of Principal Private Secretary on deputation at the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in Kolkata and received an appointment letter in February 2022. However, his parent department did not relieve him. He was finally able to join his deputation at AFT Kolkata in April 2024 more than two years after his initial appointment due to an order from the Central Administrative Tribunal.

However, the employee was served with a 90-day notice within just six months of joining for premature repatriation to his parent department. He challenged the notice before the Tribunal, but later withdrew the application to file a detailed representation to the authorities. While his representation was still pending, he was relieved from his deputation post in January 2025. Then employee filed a fresh application before the Tribunal, which was dismissed in March 2025. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's order, he approached the Calcutta High Court by filing a writ petition.

It was argued by the employee that as per the DOPT OM dated 17.06.2010, a deputationist's tenure cannot be curtailed unless a specific situation arises warranting premature reversion. His repatriation was not based on any grounds of unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance.

He further submitted that the entire process was done with mala fide intentions and was carried out in undue haste. He also argued that the Defence Minister was his appointing authority, and thus the three-month notice for reversion could not have been issued without prior approval from the Minister.

On the other hand, it was contended by the respondents that the employee's conduct from the start of his deputation was unsatisfactory. It was pointed out that immediately upon joining, he had improperly claimed a TA advance after completing his journey, which was contrary to the rules.

Further, it was submitted that the employee persistently bypassed the official channel of command by sending communications and complaints directly to the Chairperson of the AFT and other higher authorities, despite repeated warnings from the Principal Bench to stop such practices.

It was argued that the procedure was followed, including the issuance of a three-month advance notice as required by the DOPT OM. Further the prior approval of the Hon'ble Defence Minister had been duly obtained before the repatriation was effected. It was emphasized that a deputationist holds no vested right to continue on deputation and can be repatriated at the instance of the department.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the employee's conduct at the AFT provided sufficient justification for the decision. His persistent habit of bypassing the official hierarchy and making representations directly to higher authorities, despite repeated warnings, demonstrated that he was unsuitable for the deputation post, and his overall conduct was unsatisfactory.

It was further found by the Court that the procedure for premature repatriation, as mandated by the DOPT OM dated 17.06.2010, had been properly followed. A three-month advance notice was duly issued and the prior approval of the Hon'ble Defence Minister had been obtained, therefore, the employee's challenge on this ground was not sustainable.

It was held by the Court that a deputationist holds no indefeasible right to continue on deputation. The case of Kunal Nanda v. Union of India & Anr was relied upon wherein it was held that that the employee can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments. Further, there is no vested right in employee to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation.

Further relying upon Ratilal B. Soni and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others, it was held that that employee being on deputation could be repatriated to their parent cadre at any time and that they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post.

Consequently, the Tribunal's order for employee's repatriation was upheld by the Division Bench. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the employee was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Vukkem Rambabu Vs. Union of India and Others

Case No. : WPCT 94 of 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : Vukkem Rambabu

Counsel for the Respondents : Brajesh Jha, Somnath Adhikary, Sukanta Chakraborty, S. Saha